Israel opens dam to flood Palestinians out of their homes...

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

I am astounded at your ability to read selectively. The point in summary, since you seem to have cherry picked the lines that suit you, while ignoring everything else which cuts against your argument, is that Israel cannot simply keep all the territory it conquered, but it should not have to go back to the arbitrary '67 lines. Rather the final borders should be decided in a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians, which is exactly what I said earlier. Saying that Israel should simply ignore its security concerns and withdraw to the '67 lines, as you have repeatedly done, not only ignores the fact that Israel has legitimate claims and concerns of its own, but flies in the face of the very UN resolution you cite so often.

Only Israelis have a problem with United Nations Resolution 242. The whole of the international community - excluding the U.S - sees no problem with it. I wonder why that is?

As for Israel's security concerns, what about the Palestinians security concerns? What do you think should be done to protect Palestinians from further Israeli terrorism?

Israel has no problem with 242. What Israel does have a problem with is with your willful misreading of the resolution. It does not say that Israel must return all the land it conquered. It says that Israel should return some unspecified amount of the land it conquered as defined in a future agreement between the belligerant parties.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

You asked in another thread whether people find you annoying. Yes, I find you very annoying. You put words in my mouth. You accuse me of things that I'm not. You throw around inflammatory language when there is absolutely no need to. Honestly "Satanic rogue state"! You sound like George Bush for god's sake! Comparing Israel to the Nazis, that is as stupid, in my opinion, as it is insulting. And you never make your own argument. That's the worst thing. You just cut and paste what other people write. You have a brain of your own. Reason with it. I already know what Chomsky and Finkelstein think. I don't need to hear it from you over and over and over again.

Check out the definition of 'rogue state' and you'll see that Israel fits the bill perfectly.

I've not accused you of anything that you're not. I said that you support the occupation, which you do. You admitted numerous times above that you think the settlements should remain for security reasons. The fact is that the settlements have no bearing on any security concerns whatsoever, and that, if anything, they merely exacerbate any security concerns. But you know this already. Therefore you're simply making excuses for the ongoing occupation, and so are a supporter of the occupation. It's not rocket science.

And I won't apologize for supporting what I say with facts.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Israel has no problem with 242. What Israel does have a problem with is with your willful misreading of the resolution. It does not say that Israel must return all the land it conquered. It says that Israel should return some unspecified amount of the land it conquered as defined in a future agreement between the belligerant parties.

Sure, keep chewing on that crumb.

Let me ask you a question: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

You asked in another thread whether people find you annoying. Yes, I find you very annoying. You put words in my mouth. You accuse me of things that I'm not. You throw around inflammatory language when there is absolutely no need to. Honestly "Satanic rogue state"! You sound like George Bush for god's sake! Comparing Israel to the Nazis, that is as stupid, in my opinion, as it is insulting. And you never make your own argument. That's the worst thing. You just cut and paste what other people write. You have a brain of your own. Reason with it. I already know what Chomsky and Finkelstein think. I don't need to hear it from you over and over and over again.

Check out the definition of 'rogue state' and you'll see that Israel fits the bill perfectly.

I've not accused you of anything that you're not. I said that you support the occupation, which you do. You admitted numerous times above that you think the settlements should remain for security reasons. The fact is that the settlements have no bearing on any security concerns whatsoever, and that, if anything, they merely exacerbate any security concerns. But you know this already. Therefore you're simply making excuses for the ongoing occupation, and so are a supporter of the occupation. It's not rocket science.

And I won't apologize for supporting what I say with facts.

I think I know what I believe somewhat better than you do. I have said repeatedly that I do not support the occupation. So right there you have put words in my mouth and called me something I am not. I have said that Israel has a legitimate right, as per 242, to seek to alter its borders because of security concerns. This may involve retaining some settlements. I have never said that I support keeping all the settlements, in fact I have said that I think building the settlements in the first place was a giant mistake. So there again you have misrepresented me. And if you think that Israel has no security concerns with regard to the settlements along the '67 line, then you are simply woefully ignorant of something as basic to the conflict as geography. Israel is nine miles wide at its narrowest point, which also happens to be where most of the country's population lives, where the economy is centered, and where the country's only international airport is located. The settlements along the '67 line occupy hilltops that overlook this entire area and are of immense strategic importance. To say that Israel has no legitimate security concerns with regard to this area betrays a basic illiteracy when it comes to this conflict. Finally, the thoughts of Noam Chomsky do not constitute facts. They are opinions. You clearly attach a great deal of weight to these opinions. I do not. My problem is that you fall back on an argument from authority rather than making an argument of your own.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

Israel has no problem with 242. What Israel does have a problem with is with your willful misreading of the resolution. It does not say that Israel must return all the land it conquered. It says that Israel should return some unspecified amount of the land it conquered as defined in a future agreement between the belligerant parties.

Sure, keep chewing on that crumb.

Let me ask you a question: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?

I don't know. I wish I did. Let me ask you something. Why can't Jews live in the West Bank?

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

I have said that Israel has a legitimate right, as per 242, to seek to alter its borders because of security concerns.

And I'm saying, in line with U.N 242, that Israel has no right to any territory it seized in June 1967. I also say that placing civilians in areas that supposedly merit a security concern does not constitute protecting those same civilians. You don't deal with a security issue by placing civilians in the line of fire. Your argument is completely redundant.

yosi wrote:

Israel is nine miles wide at its narrowest point, which also happens to be where most of the country's population lives, where the economy is centered, and where the country's only international airport is located. The settlements along the '67 line occupy hilltops that overlook this entire area and are of immense strategic importance. To say that Israel has no legitimate security concerns with regard to this area betrays a basic illiteracy when it comes to this conflict.

Sure, and these areas, including the Golan heights, also happen to be where the majority of the regions water comes from. They are illegally occupied.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/1 ... 29288.html
'The area is also home to crucial water sources, a profitable Israeli winery, and Israeli settlements with about 18,000 residents.'

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Let me ask you a question: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?

yosi wrote:

I don't know. I wish I did.

You claim to be a Zionist. Then you know perfectly well why settlements are continuing to be built.

yosi wrote:

Let me ask you something. Why can't Jews live in the West Bank?

They do. 50,0000 Jews live in the West bank in illegal settlements.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

I have said that Israel has a legitimate right, as per 242, to seek to alter its borders because of security concerns.

And I'm saying, in line with U.N 242, that Israel has no right to any territory it seized in June 1967. I also say that placing civilians in areas that supposedly merit a security concern does not constitute protecting those same civilians. You don't deal with a security issue by placing civilians in the line of fire. Your argument is completely redundant.

yosi wrote:

Israel is nine miles wide at its narrowest point, which also happens to be where most of the country's population lives, where the economy is centered, and where the country's only international airport is located. The settlements along the '67 line occupy hilltops that overlook this entire area and are of immense strategic importance. To say that Israel has no legitimate security concerns with regard to this area betrays a basic illiteracy when it comes to this conflict.

Sure, and these areas, including the Golan heights, also happen to be where the majority of the regions water comes from. They are illegally occupied.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/1 ... 29288.html
'The area is also home to crucial water sources, a profitable Israeli winery, and Israeli settlements with about 18,000 residents.'

I'm tired of the 242 argument. I've posted extensive interviews with the drafters of the resolution all of whom said explicitly that Israel is not required by the resolution to withdraw from all of the conquered territory, so I'm really not sure why you're arguing the point, unless you think you understand the resolution better than the people who wrote it.

I have no idea why you've brought up the Golan heights. The fact that you did so simply further exposes the fact that you don't know the most basic facts about this region and this conflict. The area I was referring to is the coastal plain, which is a coastal lowland and is not in any way a water source. The golan heights are at the extreme north of the country. I made no reference to them at all. They have nothing to do with the Palestinians either, since they were conquered from Syria. As for being an important water source, that's true, but the issue of water with regard to the Palestinians has more to do with aquafers in the West Bank than it does with the Golan, to which the Palestinians have no claim whatsoever (Syria does, but not the Palestinians).

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Let me ask you a question: Why are illegal Jewish-only settlements still being built?

yosi wrote:

I don't know. I wish I did.

You claim to be a Zionist. Then you know perfectly well why settlements are continuing to be built.

yosi wrote:

Let me ask you something. Why can't Jews live in the West Bank?

They do. 50,0000 Jews live in the West bank in illegal settlements.

I am a zionist. I do not support the settlements. There is no contradiction there. My question is why do you find it morally acceptable for the Palestinians to demand a state that is juden-rein?

yosi

And I would kinda like an apology for putting words in my mouth. And for generally misrepresenting my views.

badbrains

Golan heights belongs to Syria and needs to be returned!!! My grandfather was from there and his adiga blood runs through my veins!!! I want and deserve it back!!!!! Oh and tell ur itf buddies to stop burning the hills in Berraqa..my cousins are tired of putting out the fires every summer... All they want to do is have fun not put out ur fires... They're only in there teens so let them have there fun.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

I'm tired of the 242 argument. I've posted extensive interviews with the drafters of the resolution all of whom said explicitly that Israel is not required by the resolution to withdraw from all of the conquered territory, so I'm really not sure why you're arguing the point, unless you think you understand the resolution better than the people who wrote it.

Every year a vote is cast at the U.N on 242 and every year the outcome is the same. Roughly 156 - 6, with Israel and the U.S opposing world opinion. This vote asks for 242 to be implemented with a full Israeli withdrawal to the June 1967 borders.
You can try muddying the water all you like, but no one is buying it.

yosi wrote:

I have no idea why you've brought up the Golan heights. The fact that you did so simply further exposes the fact that you don't know the most basic facts about this region and this conflict.

Because only someone who has lived in Israel can possibly know the truth about this overly complex issue, right?

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

And I would kinda like an apology for putting words in my mouth. And for generally misrepresenting my views.

Don't hold your breath.

yosi

badbrains wrote:

Golan heights belongs to Syria and needs to be returned!!! My grandfather was from there and his adiga blood runs through my veins!!! I want and deserve it back!!!!! Oh and tell ur itf buddies to stop burning the hills in Berraqa..my cousins are tired of putting out the fires every summer... All they want to do is have fun not put out ur fires... They're only in there teens so let them have there fun.

Ok, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I guess I'll go look it up. If Syria is ever serious about making peace then maybe the golan will be returned. Who knows. It could happen.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

And I would kinda like an apology for putting words in my mouth. And for generally misrepresenting my views.

Don't hold your breath.

So you're saying that when you said that I support the occupation, even though I had already written, and I quote "I do not support the occupation," you weren't misrepresenting me? Interesting.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

I am a zionist. I do not support the settlements. There is no contradiction there. My question is why do you find it morally acceptable for the Palestinians to demand a state that is juden-rein?

Once again you try and turn reality on it's head.

I don't see any reason why Jews and Arabs can't live side-by-side in peace as they did for a thousand years before the Zionists began their ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948.

As to what the Palestinian leadership thinks of Jews living legally within the West Bank:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... inion_main
'Salam Fayyad, acting prime minister of the Palestinian Authority: "I'm not someone who will say that they would or should be treated differently than Israeli Arabs are treated in Israel. In fact, the kind of state that we want to have, that we aspire to have, is one that would definitely espouse high values of tolerance, coexistence, mutual respect and deference to all cultures, religions. No discrimination whatsoever, on any basis whatsoever. Jews, to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of Palestine, will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel."

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

I'm tired of the 242 argument. I've posted extensive interviews with the drafters of the resolution all of whom said explicitly that Israel is not required by the resolution to withdraw from all of the conquered territory, so I'm really not sure why you're arguing the point, unless you think you understand the resolution better than the people who wrote it.

Every year a vote is cast at the U.N on 242 and every year the outcome is the same. Roughly 156 - 6, with Israel and the U.S opposing world opinion. This vote asks for 242 to be implemented with a full Israeli withdrawal to the June 1967 borders.
You can try muddying the water all you like, but no one is buying it.

yosi wrote:

I have no idea why you've brought up the Golan heights. The fact that you did so simply further exposes the fact that you don't know the most basic facts about this region and this conflict.

Because only someone who has lived in Israel can possibly know the truth about this overly complex issue, right?

No, certainly you could know the truth about this issue. You just don't seem to. And again, what does the Golan have to do with anything we were discussing. You still haven't cleared that up.

yosi

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

I am a zionist. I do not support the settlements. There is no contradiction there. My question is why do you find it morally acceptable for the Palestinians to demand a state that is juden-rein?

Once again you try and turn reality on it's head.

I don't see any reason why Jews and Arabs can't live side-by-side in peace as they did for a thousand years before the Zionists began their ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948.

As to what the Palestinian leadership thinks of Jews living legally within the West Bank:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... inion_main
'Salam Fayyad, acting prime minister of the Palestinian Authority: "I'm not someone who will say that they would or should be treated differently than Israeli Arabs are treated in Israel. In fact, the kind of state that we want to have, that we aspire to have, is one that would definitely espouse high values of tolerance, coexistence, mutual respect and deference to all cultures, religions. No discrimination whatsoever, on any basis whatsoever. Jews, to the extent they choose to stay and live in the state of Palestine, will enjoy those rights and certainly will not enjoy any less rights than Israeli Arabs enjoy now in the state of Israel."

I can only hope that this is the case. In fact I'm a big fan of Salam Fayyad. He's one of the few Palestinian leaders to come along in a while who really seems to not be corrupt, and to want to build functioning institutions that will benefit his people. I hope he succeeds. Not sure how I've turned reality on its head. From where I'm sitting everything still seems to be right-side-up. Maybe it's different in China.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

yosi wrote:

And I would kinda like an apology for putting words in my mouth. And for generally misrepresenting my views.

Don't hold your breath.

So you're saying that when you said that I support the occupation, even though I had already written, and I quote "I do not support the occupation," you weren't misrepresenting me? Interesting.

I explained above why I dismissed your claim. I simply took everything you said in context. You've spent the last two pages arguing why you think Israel has no need to dismantle the settlements and withdraw to the '67 border. You then pretend that you don't support the occupation. You can't have it both ways.

You can continue contradicting yourself all you like. Just don't expect me to swallow it.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

No, certainly you could know the truth about this issue. You just don't seem to. And again, what does the Golan have to do with anything we were discussing. You still haven't cleared that up.

You were trying to defend Israel's settlements by claiming they were strategic outposts whose aim was to protect Israeli citizens inside Israel. I brought up the Golan as a way of showing that there's another reason why you seek control of these areas.